sign in sign up
<<
Home , Friendship

International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, June 2010 ISSN: 2010-0248

Role of Attitude Similarity and Proximity in among Friends (C 310)

Sumaya Batool1 Member, IACSIT and Najma Iqbal Malik2 Member, IACSIT

1 described a common belief that people with real similarity Abstract―A growing body of research explores that produce initial attraction. Perceived similarity helps rating relationships are the significant part of our lives. The study others as similar to ourselves in on-going relationship. Such examines important factors of attitude similarity and perception is either self-serving (friendship) or relationship- proximity working behind interpersonal attraction among serving (romantic relationship). same gender friends. The study was conducted on sample of Interpersonal attraction is associated with attitude 160 boy friends and girl friends (40 pairs in each) through purposive convenient sampling, from Punjab, Pakistan. similarity, backgrounds, values and beliefs [8]. We tend to Findings showed that friends with more similar attitudes and have more positive emotions towards a person when we high proximity scored on interpersonal attraction as compared come to know that he or she has the same attitude as ours [5]. to friends with less similar attitudes regardless of gender. Similarity is of great significance for us because we are These findings will give a new horizon for the researchers to always in need of others, conforming to our values and study friendship with a perspective of similarity and proximity. beliefs [29]. We illuminate our understanding of, and trim However, these findings suggest the need for a deeper and extensive study of all the factors pertaining to interpersonal down our uncertainty about social situations by weighing attraction, which might give us more astute understanding of our opinions against those of other people. Recognizing that our social relations. others agree with us fortifies our beliefs and heightens our self-esteem [3]. Index Terms—Attitude Similarity, Friendship, Interpersonal We often assume that we share attitudes with people who Attraction, Proximity attract us in other ways. A study cited in [3] conducted by

Byrne and Blaylock revealed that may partially based upon the illusion of similarity—that is, spouses tend I. INTRODUCTION to perceive more similarity in attitudes between themselves Satisfying relationships significant role in and their partners than in fact exists. individuals' mental and physical well being. For the long, A grand study conducted at the University of Michigan social psychologists have been interested in how these by [21] measured the relationship of friendship with attitude relationships are established and maintained [1], [7], [9]. similarity. Initial similarity between roommates ended up in Attraction among different people is the basis of our social a good friendship than initial dissimilarity. Same study relationships which leads to friendships and romantic repeated on anew group yielded similar results. There might relationships. It is a force which draws people together and be many behind similarity attraction linkage. resists their separation and it is related to how much we , One that similarity breeds liking might be that hate, like or dislike someone. When making close people value their own choices and opinions and enjoy relationships including mate selection and life time being with others who conform their preferences, probably friendships, other person’s qualities and social situations enhancing their self-esteem during the process. But possibly determine our level of attraction or repulsion towards him or the major reason that similarity generates liking is merely a her. Interpersonal attraction is influenced by many factors, repeat of factors like, proximity and familiarity. Situational like , attitude similarity, proximity, factors and social norms impact a lot in bringing those reciprocity etc. [28]. No matter the gender is same or people closer who share similarity. Not only in social different; these determinants will remain same for predicting groups, but a majority of religious groups also prefer interpersonal attraction across different cultures [13]. members of same religion for mate selection. Even in Our self perceptions are based on our close relationships cultural norms people of same race and age are considered and on our feelings of attractiveness and attraction towards appropriate for each other. For example, a couple of an older others. Apart from a person’s outlook, similar attitudes and woman and a younger man is still perceived as unsuitable. interests of a person make us feel more attracted towards Situational factors also play an important role. Most of the him. The notion of “ of a feather flock together” points people select their mates at college or graduate school, out that similarity is a crucial determinant of interpersonal because they assume them to be similar in qualification level, attraction. Morry [17] in his attraction-similarity model general intelligence, ambitions, and probably in age and socioeconomic status. Moreover, tennis players will have 1 Manuscript was submitted on April 15, 2010. met on the tennis courts, political liberals at a pro-choice 1 Sumaya Batool is currently working at University of Sargodha, rally, and lesbians at a meeting of the Lesbian’s Union [21]. Pakistan as a lecturer, Department of Psychology, Phone; +92-332-7545260; e.mail: [email protected] Results from the bogus experiments, the get- 2Najma Iqbal Malik is currently working at University of Sargodha, acquainted interaction studies, and studies examining Pakistan as a lecturer, Department of Psychology, Phone; +92-300-9600694; friendship choices in natural settings e.g., [17], four factors e.mail: [email protected] 142

International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, June 2010 ISSN: 2010-0248 have often been recognized as determinants of attraction: Attraction of each member of a pair toward the other proximity (which includes not only geographical distance, member was measured by McCroskey & McCain’s [14] but also interaction accessibility), similarity, physical Interpersonal Attraction Scale (I.A). The scale was consisted attractiveness of the other, and reciprocal liking. A of 30-items divided into three sub-scales. The response set widespread research has demonstrated that these factors lead was in “Yes” or “No” format. First ten items were devised to attraction [4], [9], [13]. Propinquity is a powerful medium to check Social Attraction (S.A), next ten (11-20) for of attraction. It is defined as the nearness or proximity in Physical Attraction (P.A) and last ten (21-30) for Task physical or psychological space which creates the Attraction (T.A). Five items were positively worded and opportunity to meet another person [11]. Propinquity assists five negatively worded in each sub-scale of Interpersonal initial relationships (i.e. friendships) and attraction creating Attraction Scale. For example item no. 1, 2, 6, 7 and 10 familiarity and repeated exposure [24]. were positively worded, while item no. 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 were Although proximity effect a lot but still the impact of negatively worded in S.A subscale. In P.A subscale item no. similarity is greater. Despite all this, it is often suggested 11, 12, 13, 16 and 19 were positively worded, while item no. that the saying that opposites attract may still apply to 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20 were negatively worded. In T.A certain complementary personality traits [20]. To take the subscale item no. 23, 24, 27, 29 and 30 were positively most obvious example, one partner may be quite dominant worded, while item no. 21, 22, 25, 26 and 28 were and thus require someone who is relatively more submissive. negatively worded. A person with strong preferences may do best with someone Survey of Attitudes who is very flexible or even wishy-washy. But despite the The Survey of Attitudes consisted of 26 items derived plausibility of this complementarity hypothesis, there is not from Byrne’s [5] original 56-item Survey of Attitudes was much evidence for it [10]. In one study, marital adjustments used in this study. Each item was scored on a six-point scale among couples married for up to five years was found to without the neutral point. Culture specific issues were depend more on similarity than on complementarity [16]. discarded. [2] had already adapted this questionnaire and the Attempts to identify the pairs of personality traits that bring checked reliability was r = .89. She had used 27 items in her about complementarity have not been very successful [26]. study but one item was excluded from the present research When all is said and done it is similarity that wins the day owing to city cultural differences. As the present research [21]. required applying this questionnaire on pair of subjects who The research focused the following objectives: were friends so the reliability was measured again. 1) To find out the effects of attitude similarity on interpersonal attraction. C. Procedure 2) To check gender differences in effects of attitude The participants were asked to fill out the test booklets, similarity on interpersonal attraction. which were consisted of demographic data form, Attitude 3) To explore the relationship between proximity and Survey and Interpersonal Attraction Measurement Scale. As interpersonal attraction. the participants were divided in pairs of friends, each member of the pair was instructed to give his/her personal A. Hypotheses opinion on Survey of Attitudes and to give his/her opinion The following hypotheses have been formulated for the about his/her friend on Interpersonal Attraction Scale, after study: filling out demographic data form. The data were analyzed 1) The friends having similar attitudes will also possess qualitatively and by applying different statistical analyses. high interpersonal attraction. 2) Attitude similarity is as much important for the boys as for the girls in determining interpersonal attraction. 3) Friends having more proximity will have high III. RESULTS interpersonal attraction as compared to friends with The reliability of measures used in the study was less proximity. significantly high. Coefficient alpha for Survey of Attitudes was .95. The reliability estimates for all sub-scales of I.A II. METHOD Scale ranged from .58 to .76 respectively. Further statistical A. Sample analyses were applied for hypotheses’ testing. The results The subjects (N = 160) were 40 pairs of boy friends and reveal that the alpha co-efficient of Survey of attitude scale 40 pairs of girl friends from Punjab, Pakistan. The age range is quite high (r = .91, **p< .01) determining that there is of students was between 19 to 27 years (M= 23, S.D= .65). high positive correlation between the attitudes of the friends.

B. Measures Demographic Data Form

Demographic research form was consisted of basic information like name, age gender, length of relationship and distance from friend’s home (i.e. sharing same room, 1- 15Km, 15-30Km and living in separate cities) Interpersonal Attraction Scale (I.A)

143

International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, June 2010 ISSN: 2010-0248

TABLE I MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND T-VALUES OF SCORES OF FRIENDS WITH MORE SIMILAR ATTITUDES AND LESS SIMILAR ATTITUDES ON THE I.A SCALE (N = 160). Group M SD t p

Friends with 26.28 1.37 more similar attitudes 22.36**** .000

Friends with 21.44 1.36 less similar attitudes df = 158

between friends with more similar attitudes and friends with

less similar attitudes on the scores of I.A Scale. It shows that The results explore the relationship of attitude similarity attitude similarity works as an important determinant of and interpersonal attraction through t-test. Significant interpersonal attraction. difference has been found (t = 22.36, ****p < .000, 2-tailed)

TABLE II. THE IMPACT OF GENDER AND ATTITUDE SIMILARITY ON INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION. Boys Girls (n =80) (n =80) M S.D M S.D F p More 26.12 1.41 26.42 1.32 similar attitude 1.47 .23 Less 21.32 1.38 21.55 1.36 similar attitude

Total 23.72 2.78 23.99 2.79 df= 179, p= n.s

In Table II, gender differences with reference to different results clearly confirmed all the hypotheses, that similarity variables were computed through F-test. The Mean values of attitudes breeds attraction and more proximity brings revealed that the friends with more similar attitudes scored more attraction. high [M = 26.12 (boys), M = 26.42 (girls)] on I.A Scale, The hypothesis that attitude similarity is one of the major while the friends with less similar attitudes comparatively determinants of interpersonal attraction was confirmed by scored low [M = 21.32 (boys), M = 21.55(girls)] on I.A the findings of t-test applied on the scores of friends with Scale (see Table 2). So, it can be concluded that there is a more similar attitudes and with less similar attitudes on I.A direct relation between Attitude Similarity and Interpersonal Scale. The mean values revealed that the friends with more Attraction regardless of gender. similar attitudes scored high on I.A Scale, while the friends with less similar attitudes comparatively scored low on I.A D. Qualitative Analysis of Proximity and Attraction Scale. Significant difference has been found between friends Relationship The relationship of proximity and interpersonal attraction with more similar attitudes and friends with less similar was analyzed qualitatively. Friends who stated that they attitudes on the scores of I.A Scale. [5] shared the common share the same room and who were sharing the same street notion that increased proportion of attitude similarity or same town scored high on interpersonal attraction, while between two people leads towards increased interpersonal the friends who were living in distant homes or living in attraction. separate cities and provinces did not show as much Statistics show that individuals in long-term relationships attraction towards each other. The reason behind these prefer to associate with other people who are similar to them findings might be that when we share most of the time [28]. Although there are so many researches done on together, we feel more attached and more connected with determining factors associated with interpersonal attraction, those people. On the other side, the friends who do not come and nearly all of them have findings regarding mate in contact as frequently as others do, they could not develop selection. But the same principles apply to attraction among such a close and with each other and friends. No doubt other factors like proximity, physical they even lack emotional attachment. attraction and complimentarity increase attraction but in some cases scenario is quite different. Although in proximity sharing of space helps someone to get to know a IV. DISCUSSION person better. But in some cases becoming more familiar The present research was an attempt to study the most with an individual can lead to a dislike of that individual. In firmly established relationships in our culture that is the long term relationships like friendships, similarity is the linear function linking similar attitudes, proximity and only thing which leaves no doubt to increase attraction interpersonal attraction among same gender friends. The 144

International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, June 2010 ISSN: 2010-0248

toward other person. As long as this relationship gets deeper [2] A. Munawar. Effect of attitude similarity and ethnicity on with increased similarity, our positive feelings towards interpersonal attraction. Unpublished master’s thesis, Quaid-e-Azam University Islamabad, Pakistan. another person get more intense. [30] suggested that [3] C. G. Morris. Understanding Psychology, (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall Inc. attraction among friends is the result of the propinquity, 1996. status and similarity effects. Other researchers [18], [21], [4] C. W. Backman, Attraction in interpersonal relationships. In M. Rosenberg and R. H. Turner (Eds.), : Sociological [22], [23], [27] also verified the similarity-attraction bond in Perspectives, New York: Basic Books. 1981, pp. 235-268. long term relations. [5] D. Byrne. The Attraction Paradigm. New York; Academic Press. Another hypothesis that attitude similarity is as much 1971. [6] D. Felmlee, and S. Sprecher. Close relationships and social important for the men as for the women in determining psychology: Intersections and future paths. Social Psychology interpersonal attraction was also proved. The Mean values Quarterly. 2000, 63: pp. 365-376. revealed that the friends with more similar attitudes scored [7] D. G. Myers and E. Diener. Who is happy? Psychological Science, 1995, 6: pp. 10-19. high on I.A Scale, while the friends with less similar [8] D. M. Buss. Sex differences in human mate preferences: attitudes comparatively scored low on I.A Scale. Non- Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain significant difference between scores of boys and girls Sciences. 1989, 12: pp. 1—49. [9] E. Berscheid. The greening of . American revealed that attitude similarity is equally important for both Psychologist, 1999, 54: pp. 260-266. the genders in determining interpersonal attraction. These [10] G. Levinger, D. J. Senn, B. W. Jorgensen. Progress toward findings are also inline with the previous researches in this permanence in : A test of the Kerkhoff-Devis hypotheses. area [16]. Sociometry. 1970, 33: pp. 427-443. [11] G. M. Vaughan and M. A. Hogg. Introduction to Social Psychology And the hypothesis that friends having more proximity 4th Ed. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia. 2005. will have high interpersonal attraction as compared to [12] E. Berscheid and H. Reis. Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. friends with less proximity. The results of qualitative Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, (4th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill. 1998, pp. 193-281. analysis showed that friends who stated that they share same [13] J. A. Simpson and B. A. Harris. Interpersonal attraction. In A. L. room or same town were shown to have high scores on Weber and J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Perspectives on close relationships interpersonal attraction than friends who lived in distant Needham Heights, MA: AUyn and Bacon. 1994, pp. 45-66. [14] J. C. McCroskey and T. A. McCain. The measurement of towns and cities. Previous researches done in this interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs. 1974. 41. pp. 261-266. perspective strongly support our results. Close proximity to [15] J. E. Lydon, D.W. Jamieson, M.P. Zanna, Interpersonal similarity another includes a small practical distance and opportunity and the social and intellectual dimensions of first impressions. Social . 1988. 6(4): pp. 269-286. for continued interaction, which can considerably enhance [16] J. P. Meyer, and S. Pepper. Need compatibility and marital the possibility of attraction [25]. A research by [17] found adjustment in young married couples. Journal of Personality and that people rated attraction charisma and friendship highest Social Psychology. 1977, 8: pp. 331-342. with those living on the same residential floor; rather than [17] L. Festinger, S. Schachter, K. Back. Social Pressures in Informal Groups: A Study of Human Factors in Housing. New York: those living on other floors or distant buildings this research Harper.1950. evidence the intoxicating effects of proximity on [18] L. Jussim, and D. W. Osgood. Influence and similarity among interpersonal attraction. Other studies in this area also friends: An integrative model applied to incarcerated adolescents. supported that after similarity, proximity is the most Social Psychology Quarterly. June, 1989, 52: pp. 98-112. [19] M. M. Morry. Relationship satisfaction as a predictor of perceived powerful determinant for increased interpersonal attraction similarity among cross-sex friends: A test of the attraction-similarity [4], [11], [12],[13], [24]. model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2007, 24: pp. 117-138. [20] R. F. Winch, T. Ktsanes, V. Ktsanes. The theory of complementary V. CONCLUSION needs in mate selection: An analytic and descriptive study. American Relationships have always been an issue of major Sociological Review. 1954, 29: pp. 241-249. [21] R. L. Atkinson, R. C. Atkinson, E. E. Smith, D. J. Bem. Introduction significance for all human beings. Above mentioned results to Psychology. (11th ed.). Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1993. explained the importance of attitude similarity and [22] R. Singh and S. Y. Ho. Attitudes and attraction: A new test of the proximity in friendship. The findings of the study may help attraction, repulsion and similarity-dissimilarity asymmetry hypotheses. British Journal of Social Psychology, 2000, 39 (2): pp. researchers to focus on the perspective of friendship 197-211. regarding interpersonal attraction on the basis of attitude [23] R. Singh, P. K. F. Lin, H. L. Tan, L. J. Ho. Evaluations, attitude similarity and proximity. Friendship is a very vital and similarity, and interpersonal attraction: testing the hypothesis of weighting interference across responses. Basic and Applied Social essential part of our social life which needs to be focused by Psychology. July 2008, 30 (3): pp. 241-252. the researchers and social psychologists. Present research [24] S. J. Breckler, J. M. Olson, E. C. Wiggins. Social Psychology Alive. may help them studying the impact of gender on Belmont, CA: Thomson . 2006. interpersonal attraction among close friends. [25] S. Sprecher. Insiders' perspectives on reasons for attraction to a close other. Social Psychology Quarterly, 1998, 61: pp. 287-300. [26] S. R. Strong, H. J. Hills, C. T. Kilmartin, H. Devries, K. Lanier, B. N. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Nelson, D. Strickland, C. W. Meyer, The dynamic relations among interpersonal behaviors: A test of complementarity and anti- I owe the debt to acknowledge all the participants of the complementarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1988, study for their cooperation and all my teachers who 54: pp. 798-810. provided me guidance and encouragement on each step to [27] T. M. Newcomb. The Acquaintance Process. Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 1961. accomplish this research work. [28] T.L. Orbuch, and J. Veroff, A programmatic review: Building a two- way bridge between social psychology and the study of the early REFERENCES years of marriage. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2002, 19: pp. 549-568. [1] A. Campbell, P. E. Converse, W.L. Rodgers, The Quality of American Life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 1976.

145

International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, June 2010 ISSN: 2010-0248

[29] T. L. Orbuch, and S. Sprecher. Attraction and Interpersonal Relationships. In Handbook of Social Psychology, edited by J. Delamater. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2003. [30] W. Kubitschek, and M. X. Hallinan. Tracking and students' friendships. Social Psychology Quarterly.1998, 61: pp. 1-15

146